>I rather think that the biblical text MAY be polyvalent in numerous instances>--that some texts MAY be legitimately interpreted in more than one way, and>that some texts even seem to cry out for depth and breadth of>interpretation.

Just for clarification, when you say, "depth and breath of interpretation",
are you equating it with polyvalency? Can not one single interpretation
achieve "depth and breath" of meaning? I too am not sure that we should
disregard perhaps a multiple understanding of a particular text. A number
of interpretations of a particular text may be right...but which is the
interpretation that was meant to be there by inspiration? This is why there
is no problem with trying to determine an "historical setting" of a passage.
It is no secret that numerous interpretations have been posed for a
particular passage depending upon which historical setting one chooses to
work from (e.g. Mark 10:25, "camel and the eye of the needle"). But is this
the same as the interpretation that Scripture is meaning to convey? Here is
where I am more concerned as a biblical exegete (or at least, hoping to be
living up to such a title...it's quite a title to take on!).